The council began by discussing how to effectively categorize public feedback in the charter review process. A framework was proposed to categorize potential charter changes into actions the Town Council could implement directly, those requiring legislative approval, and others necessitating a new charter commission. This categorization aims to reflect the community’s autonomy to amend its charter, as outlined in section 9.1 of the current charter. The categorization framework sparked debate among members, with some emphasizing the need for inclusivity in public participation and others advocating for a more selective approach to feedback.

The council also explored the formation of informal working groups to brainstorm ideas and gather public input, a strategy designed to comply with open meeting laws while allowing for preliminary discussions. The idea of an informal group was met with interest, particularly for exploring mechanisms for collecting public feedback. This approach is intended to streamline the process and ensure that any proposals are eventually brought before the entire committee for broader discussion.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing public engagement strategies. Members proposed diversifying engagement opportunities beyond traditional town hall meetings by organizing informal gatherings like barbecues or park discussions, and utilizing online surveys to reach a broader audience. The goal is to engage individuals who might not typically participate due to barriers such as socio-economic status or demographic factors. The council emphasized the necessity of creating a two-way communication channel between the committee and the public.

The practicality of interactive public comment sessions was also considered. Suggestions included moving away from the traditional format, allowing for clarification during comments, and creating opportunities for resident-to-resident discussions. The council recognized the limitations of the current public comment process and expressed interest in enhancing engagement by showing residents that their contributions are considered in decision-making.

Additionally, the council discussed the role of legal counsel and consultants in the charter review process. There was a collective interest in seeking guidance from the town’s law firm regarding actions that could be taken locally versus those requiring legislative action. The importance of maintaining a list of legal questions and understanding the costs associated with legal counsel was underscored, given budget constraints.

The council also touched on potential state grants for consulting services, specifically in relation to charter review processes. A state grant supporting good governance initiatives, which could provide up to $25,000, was mentioned as a potential funding source. The council expressed interest in gathering information from other municipalities that have undergone similar charter review processes.

Finally, the council considered logistical aspects of their meetings, including the organization of documents, the scheduling of meetings, and the potential for hybrid meeting formats. Concerns were raised about document organization, with suggestions to enhance accessibility by organizing documents by topic rather than by meeting date. The council agreed to reach out for assistance in improving document organization.